I remember seeing the film when it came out and I definitely read the Chigurh character as being some sort of Devil persona, not quite a real person, more a concept of an evil djinn or an avenging angel that you get in scripture and folklore. the thing with the coin and the way he could seemingly get anywhere & find anyone seemed to exemplify that.

I loved Alfred Hitchcock....The Coen brothers are the next level...but well above. Who's going to compare Babe Ruth with Ted Williams. They're years apart. The Coen bothers had the benefit of Hitchcock to influence they're unique and beautiful style. Not to mention Wilder, Kurosawa, Wells....

In the decade since No Country, I've heard Anton Chigurh described as one of the great villains, or bad guys, in cinema history. But I think it's more Manichaean a dynamic. Ed Tom is the embodiment of good and Chigurh is the embodiment of evil, and Llewelyn is man, caught between the two.

Great movie. I was nervous for the characters. If I recall correctly, they didn't use music to emphasize any scene and that made it more suspenseful. For example that shootout scene in the street. No music!

This made my teeth taste like my tongue and my tongue taste like it was tired of fort night not letting me get up and change station to porn or invader zim but mustering up enough energy to comment. About it .

Charlie Rose is a terrible interviewer. All he does is interrupt his guests & sometimes I feel like he doesn’t completely “get” them. His Louis CK one in particular is so awkward. Granted he’s made a career out of it & I have not but I’ll still throw my worthless opinion out there.

not just that they have talent.. of course you must be a great artist.. but what you see here is them all jumping in to speak about the film.. and they know when to stand back and jump in... each one has a moment.. meaning that they all could hang out together and there is no attitude.. no pretense.. just pure magic on sense... sensibility... these movies they make are incredible...

Ron Wylie There’s no way that Moss would have gone back to the scene of the crime. He already had the money and he knew how dangerous and criminal these guys were. And the whole movie hinges on that. It’s the same in the book but I feel it’s a real weakness in his character and in the plot.

It's interesting watching this interview to view perception. The way Josh and the Coen's describe the Moss character as "A Clean American Boy" and "He just cares deeply for his wife" I don't see his character that way at all. I don't think it makes his character any less effective, but if that's what they were trying to convey then I'm going to say they got their wires crossed somewhere. Llewellyn strikes me as a cunning, devious and most importantly selfish character and I view him as most definitely an anti-hero in the film. He could have gotten his wife out of trouble, but he chose instead to pursue selfish desires and ego. Part of me wonders if that is because the true nature of Brolin shines through as a person, (not saying he's evil, just more sly as a person) but mostly I just feel like that's just the way the character was written and directed.

I haven´t read the book (yet) but heard McCormick was rather precise about the weaponry as J.Brolin confirms. Funny that that´s the only real criticism on the movie I´ve heard so far: some of the guns weren´t on the market back then. Doesn´t matter to me, I love it. Like most Coen Films the cast is F PERFECT, great love for details, boy.... It got it all.

No Country for Old Men is superior to the epic of There Will Be Blood. Anderson can be quite pretentious and narcissistic at times when he directs. I believe he is not as good as the Coen brothers because they are more down-to-earth, less Oscar-hungry.

Oh look who it is, Charlie rose. The crusty old liberal sexual abuser. The defender of women. He must have attended the bill Clinton school of hypocrisy. Abuse women behind the scenes and publicly criticize your political enemies for what your guilty of. Welcome to the New Democratic Party

Javier gets very little time here. Great cinema and film-making for sure, but he creates one of the greatest antagonists of all time – we want to hear more! Josh Brolin did his part – and is great fore sure, but he's not in the running for the greatest protagonist of all time. Javier is next to James Earl Jones / David Prowse or Henry Fonda (One Upon a Time) in terms of truly great villain status.

In "No Country For Old Men", Javier Bardem portrays one of the most engaging psychopaths ever presented on the silver screen. Some similarly chilling characters by other actors in other movies: Alan Arkin in "Wait Until Dark", Rod Steiger in "No Way To Treat A Lady", Jack Palance in "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", Bette Davis in "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane", etc. Then there's Anthony Perkins in "Psycho", Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction". Werner Krauss in "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".

Rose once again proves his brilliance in bringing disparate and highly interesting people together. I LOVED this interview. Javier was beyond good in this film, but my Coen favorite will always remain, Fargo. Anyone notice how much Joel Coen looks remarkably like Tim Burton?

These maybe the best film makers ever. Fargo, Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, No Country for old men, Blood Simple even True Grit was very entertaining. Just a brilliant body of work,

The Rabbi's instited good deeds to replace animal sacrifice, and that is what Joel is alluding to, of what he would not go into,
that all of Llewelyn's problems started by him taking water to a thirsty person, who by the way, when Llewelyn got there, found out that he had already been killed.
Later came "A Serious Man".

This is one of the most intense movies ever filmed; and even the people who created it are made uncomfortable by it.
Just look at the early scenes, the video of the interviews. Everybody is (at some time) "uncomfortable". They are face-palming.
See where their hands are,
They're stroking their nose, they're palming their chin .. in one way or another, they tend to try to hide their face.
They become more comfortable as the interview progresses, but you know that even they are affected by the intrinsic horror which they have created.

Obviously I know about the transmitter and the Mexicans had one too. But how, for example, did Chigurh know to go to the back of the hotel to shoot at Llewelyn who ran through the hotel to get to the back? How did the Mexicans know to follow Llewelyn's wife and her mom to the airport? How did anyone know that Llewelyn crossed the border into Mexico? There are so many improbable instances where people had knowledge they wouldn't have likely had. Also- what were those two Mexicans doing in the bathroom together? And when Sheriff Bell went to the hotel room at night where Llewelyn got killed, why did it show Chigurh hiding and then it turned out he wasn't there? So annoying.

The previews and promotion for this movie never really struck me as, appealing. I had never even seen it until Netflix had it years later.
This movie was an absolute masterpiece. I'm gonna be buried holding this movie!
Javier Bardem knocked it out of the park!

I think part of that was also shown in the trailer at the beginning of this video. The trailer focuses on one-liners and action shots. The movie, on the other hand, has a very slow pace in terms of action, with a couple of chase scenes in between. The focus lies more with the characters, their thought progress, their cleverness, and the mystery that surrounds both the protagonist and antagonist. That's not something that is easy to put in a trailer.

They're not entirely honest about Josh Brolin's casting. It's public knowledge now that Heath Ledger was the Coens' first choice, but he passed on the role. It's probably the only case of someone passing on a leading part in a Coen brothers movie.
Since knowing this, I can't shake the feeling Ledger would've been much better than Brolin. I mean Brolin did a great job, but IMO Llewelyn Moss would've worked better as someone younger and more gentle looking. Carla Jean was obviously young and Brolin looked a lot older than her. Furthermore, the whole point of Moss' character that he was in over his head and he simply bit off more than he could chew. Despite the tour in Vietnam and despite him thinking otherwise, Moss wasn't cut-out for handling this situation. And I think Ledger's more innocent, less rugged frame would've conveyed this aspect significantly better than Brolin. Brolin looked like a tough dude, it was hard to buy that "fish out of water" aspect of Moss with an actor like him. I think the Coens knew this, that's why they say they wanted a "nice, clean boy".

I cant agree with you here I think Brolin was just perfect for the part, one could see him in his war service and why he took the huge chance to improve life for him wife, Ledger would have been wonderful, he always was but I still would have picked Brolin

My interpretation is that Moss making mistakes frequently is meant to push the idea that we can't always make the best decision is a situation where one has to be made very quickly. Josh was perfect for the role imo but that's me.

When you put it that way, that seems to make sense. Brolin brought a ruggedness to the role, but when he messed up and made mistakes, it seemed out of character. You'd expect a younger man with less experience in life to make those mistakes, not a Vietnam vet. But then again, nobody's perfect, and when you're on the run, you don't always think clear enough to outsmart your predator. So in a way, I like that the film shows even a man like Moss could make mistakes, the wrong kind that cost him his life

This 30 minute interview should have been 27 minutes of Javier explaining his role. Its evident he did not see the movie before the interview. After watching this NO ONE walks out talking about anything but the villain , so creepy, so hard to watch but cant look away!

Who's the interviewer? Sorry jst no clue. Dose he do criticism or jst this. What's his deal? He does a good job. Ask soulful questions and let it roll. I guess it's that kind of film tho. It's not like he's asking Michael bay about 3D robotics.

Interesting that McCarthy came up with the name _Chigurh_ to make it ethnically untraceable - when I read the book (before seeing the film) I thought it was perhaps a play on the German word _Chirurg_ for 'surgeon' (Der Chirurg.) When I saw the film, I was further convinced that my theory held water because Bardem portrayed Anton Chigurh as an icy, emotionless killer - 'clinically detached' and almost 'surgical' in his methods. Anyway, this film was as close to perfect as you can get in every regard, the cast especially. Both book and film are both artistic masterworks, but the film takes it to the next level!

+Red Floyd i like it too.... Idk what is the relation between gender and movie-type that u like. The only relate with somebody's preference in movies is only their taste in movie and how much their exposure in different movie-genres. Sorry for my bad english

+Red Floyd @Red Floyd Are you assuming women can't enjoy or understand art produced by men? That's a pretty severe broad stroke of the brush, thought men didn't like that. Growing up I was addicted to the painstaking, meticulous process Martin Scorsese directed his films. They're still my favorites to this day.